Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

Love that gif toot lol.

Snowdog I refuse to believe you are in search of the truth wherever it may lead. You've not even really acknowledged any of the evidence I've posted in this thread. You've not yet even made a single post mentioning the Copenhagen Diagnosis. For all I know you've not even skimmed over the document. Saying all I've brought to the table is a couple of IPCC charts is bullcrap. You were the one hung up on the chart in the first place, accusing me of dodging the question remember? Then when I did the homework for you and explained clearly what was going on with it you shifted gears again and went all vague warblegarble on me.

I'm perfectly fine keeping politics, money, and anything else out of this discussion that isn't directly related to the science going forward but I don't think you are capable of that. I also do not think you are capable of making claims and backing them up. That is kind of important if we are going to have any sort of productive civil discussion. I'm fine discussing the weaker points of the science too as I know perfectly well that climate is not close to being completely understood. But if you are going to sit there and run your mouth making broad generalizations and trying to pass off guesses and hunches as fact then I'm going to call your ass out on it.

So we are at a juncture. We can attempt to discuss the science of climate change in an honest and respectful way, or we can post funny pictures and act juvenile. Doesn't matter to me, I'll get a kick out of either.

Back to model skill. While the global average temperature charts are useful for looking at the summary picture, it's important to keep in mind that the global climate models are simulating climate at points all across the earth. The spatial resolution is about 1 degree by 1 degree while the regional climate models are higher resolution if I recall correctly. So when gauging model skill we should also look at how well the models did or didn't predict regional climate.

The research I posted earlier in the thread showed that they predicted the arctic ice melting (even underestimated it) while also predicting the associated sea level rise (also underestimating it). Also the eruption of Mount Pinatubo was a great opportunity to test the models. When the event was fed into them they accurately simulated the climate repercussions of it. Here are some other model successes:

- the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed

- as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png)

- models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5302/957)

- models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-28-05.html)

- models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.

- models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3.gif)

And of course there are known biases with these models. It is known that they have a tendency to over warm certain regions while under warming others (same for cooling). These biases are not unlike what we see with weather models such as the Euro or GFS. One must factor those into the overall analysis.

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog I refuse to believe you are in search of the truth wherever it may lead. You've not even really acknowledged any of the evidence I've posted in this thread. You've not yet even made a single post mentioning the Copenhagen Diagnosis. For all I know you've not even skimmed over the document. Saying all I've brought to the table is a couple of IPCC charts is bullcrap. You were the one hung up on the chart in the first place, accusing me of dodging the question remember? Then when I did the homework for you and explained clearly what was going on with it you shifted gears again and went all vague warblegarble on me.

I also do not think you are capable of making claims and backing them up. That is kind of important if we are going to have any sort of productive civil discussion.

I'm left scratching my head here. I made claims and backed them up then on page 2 you tried to refute my assertions with old graphs. You state that sea levels aren't falling (yes they are, check the NASA site, a simple Google search), you say temps aren't falling and again showed an old graph (yes temps have leveled off through the last decade and are now falling, I have provided the data), and global sea ice is back on the gain not to mention current northern hemispheric ice has peaked at the latest date in a long time.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog I refuse to believe you are in search of the truth wherever it may lead. You've not even really acknowledged any of the evidence I've posted in this thread. You've not yet even made a single post mentioning the Copenhagen Diagnosis. For all I know you've not even skimmed over the document. Saying all I've brought to the table is a couple of IPCC charts is bullcrap. You were the one hung up on the chart in the first place, accusing me of dodging the question remember? Then when I did the homework for you and explained clearly what was going on with it you shifted gears again and went all vague warblegarble on me.

I also do not think you are capable of making claims and backing them up. That is kind of important if we are going to have any sort of productive civil discussion.

I'm left scratching my head here. I made claims and backed them up then on page 2 you tried to refute my assertions with old graphs. You state that sea levels aren't falling (yes they are, check the NASA site, a simple Google search), you say temps aren't falling and again showed an old graph (yes temps have leveled off through the last decade and are now falling, I have provided the data), and global sea ice is back on the gain not to mention current northern hemispheric ice has peaked at the latest date in a long time.

Looking at the latest temperature or sea gauge doesn't change the trend. If observations show continued cooling and lower sea levels 10 years from now you might have a valid point.

Stovepipe wrote:Back to model skill.

From Wiki....LINK

Between the 1990s and 2000s, the growth rate in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and industrial processes increased (McMullen and Jabbour, 2009, p. .[35] The growth rate from 1990-1999 averaged 1.1% per year. This increased to an average of 3.5% per year for the time period 2000-2007. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than that projected in the most fossil-fuel intensive SRES A1FI emissions scenario (McMullen and Jabbour, 2009, p. 8; Raupach et al., 2007, fig.1).[36][not in citation given]

Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010,[37] a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the worst case scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

So greenhouse gas emissions are even worse than the worst case model scenario. Yet, global temps have fallen below even the "coldest" A1B scenario ensemble. A1B isn't even the worst case scenario. So why are the IPCC models having such a hard time? It couldn't be because they have vastly overstated the positive feedback mechanism could it? Which I also provided data back a couple of pages to show the folly in the positive feedback mechanism.

I am skeptical of the hindcasting model accuracy (which can be easily tampered with) because the forecasting models are so bad. Now, maybe this is a temporary blip as you have stated. It very well may be there is no way to know until a few years into the future. With the PDO flip however I think we will continue current cooling into the future.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Back to model skill.

From Wiki....LINK

Between the 1990s and 2000s, the growth rate in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and industrial processes increased (McMullen and Jabbour, 2009, p. .[35] The growth rate from 1990-1999 averaged 1.1% per year. This increased to an average of 3.5% per year for the time period 2000-2007. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than that projected in the most fossil-fuel intensive SRES A1FI emissions scenario (McMullen and Jabbour, 2009, p. 8; Raupach et al., 2007, fig.1).[36][not in citation given]

Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010,[37] a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the worst case scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

So greenhouse gas emissions are even worse than the worst case model scenario. Yet, global temps have fallen below even the "coldest" A1B scenario ensemble. A1B isn't even the worst case scenario. So why are the IPCC models having such a hard time? It couldn't be because they have vastly overstated the positive feedback mechanism could it? Which I also provided data back a couple of pages to show the folly in the positive feedback mechanism.

I am skeptical of the hindcasting model accuracy (which can be easily tampered with) because the forecasting models are so bad. Now, maybe this is a temporary blip as you have stated. It very well may be there is no way to know until a few years into the future. With the PDO flip however I think we will continue current cooling into the future.

I'd still argue that it's not obvious yet that "the IPCC models are having such a hard time". I'm also having difficulty understanding why model skill during hind-casting has to be discounted. Any data can be tampered with in any analysis (climate or otherwise) but it would be very hard for such tampering to get past the peer review process. Especially considering the shear number of studies that have been done across many organizations all across the world. If there were problems with the hind-casting it would have been brought to light by now. I've been involved in studies that have been subjected to peer review and I can assure that there is nothing those people love more than ripping a paper completely apart.

So again, if the models have had considerable success simulating past climate using known forcings and observations going forward have not (as of yet) strayed outside of the forecasted trend's error bars then I don't see how this is an across the board failure at all.

Stovepipe wrote:Looking at the latest temperature or sea gauge doesn't change the trend. If observations show continued cooling and lower sea levels 10 years from now you might have a valid point.

So now you are changing your previous statement of "Unless you get very creative with your cherry picking, temps are rising"? So now you want to quantify that previous statement with the word "trend"? The 10 year trendline would show cooling as well.

Or this quote, "Just because an area near the Arctic falls a bit for a few years doesn't mean the global sea level has"? NASA's graphic shows "Global Sea Level Drop" not Arctic Sea Level. Also this isn't just a small drop it is one of the, if not the, largest drop on the graph. It has been dropping since 2009. We'll see where we are in a few years. Considering the addition of ice globally and falling global temps, I expect the numbers to continue to fall.

Stovepipe wrote:I'd still argue that it's not obvious yet that "the IPCC models are having such a hard time". I'm also having difficulty understanding why model skill during hind-casting has to be discounted. Any data can be tampered with in any analysis (climate or otherwise) but it would be very hard for such tampering to get past the peer review process. Especially considering the shear number of studies that have been done across many organizations all across the world. If there were problems with the hind-casting it would have been brought to light by now. I've been involved in studies that have been subjected to peer review and I can assure that there is nothing those people love more than ripping a paper completely apart.

So again, if the models have had considerable success simulating past climate using known forcings and observations going forward have not (as of yet) strayed outside of the forecasted trend's error bars then I don't see how this is an across the board failure at all.

Hindcasting, to me, is like knowing the answer to a math problem and working backwards to figure it out. When I say easily manipulated this is more what I mean than manipulated for nefarious reasons (although that exists as well see Climategate). Forecasting is the opposite and obviously requires much more skill.

It HAS fallen outside the forecasted trend. I was using A1B ensemble data and like I said current temps are "colder" than the coldest ensemble from the A1B grouping. A1B however is not the worst case scenario and as stated before we are outside of even the worst case scenario with current greenhouse gas emissions. If you want to use models that aren't using correct greenhouse gas emissions then yes current temps are staying inside some of those ensemble runs. Probably closer to the "B" type scenarios, which is the best case type scenarios.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Looking at the latest temperature or sea gauge doesn't change the trend. If observations show continued cooling and lower sea levels 10 years from now you might have a valid point.

So now you are changing your previous statement of "Unless you get very creative with your cherry picking, temps are rising"? So now you want to quantify that previous statement with the word "trend"? The 10 year trendline would show cooling as well.

I'm not changing anything. Putting climate models aside, let's look at temperature observations. The only way that you can possibly say that climate is cooling is if you only look at the last few years. Once again, this is weather not climate.

This is from CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2011 was the twelfth (see footnote) warmest on record.

The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 13th warmest year of the whole record.

This time series is compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century. The warmth or coldness of individual years is strongly influenced by whether there was an El Niño or a La Niña event occurring in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (see Information Sheet 12).

This is from NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/




(fig 7)

Has Global Warming Slowed in the Past Decade?

Figure 7 helps us examine the issue of whether global warming has "stopped" in the past decade or at least slowed down from the rate of the prior two decades. Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998. However, global temperature has a strong interannual variability tied to the Southern Oscillation (El Niño-La Niña cycle), as is apparent in Fig. 7.

Hansen et al. (2010) showed that the correlation of 12-month running-mean global temperature and Niño 3.4 index is maximum with global temperature lagging the Niño index by 4 months. Thus the 1997-1998 "El Niño of the century" had a timing that maximized 1998 global temperature. In contrast, the 2011 global temperature was dragged down by a strong La Niña. Indeed, the strength of the current double-bottomed La Niña, being based on ocean surface temperature relative to base period 1951-1980, is under-emphasized by the long-term trend toward higher temperature.

Thus, although the current global warming graphs (Figs. 2, 3 and the upper part of Fig. 7) are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added. In particular we need to see how high global temperature rises in response to the next El Niño, and we also need to consider the effect of the 10-12 year cycle of solar irradiance. This raises the question of when the next El Niño will occur and the status of the solar cycle.

So again, unless you focus on literally the last 2 or 3 years or try to use 1998 as your starting point, it is pretty obvious we are still very much warming. Has it slowed during the current ENSO cycle? Sure. But this doesn't yet have any bearing on AGW theory.

snowdog wrote:Hindcasting, to me, is like knowing the answer to a math problem and working backwards to figure it out. When I say easily manipulated this is more what I mean than manipulated for nefarious reasons (although that exists as well see Climategate). Forecasting is the opposite and obviously requires much more skill.

I can't help what hind-casting is to "you". As far as I know you aren't a climate scientist. It is a very useful exercise, well documented, and a critical part of model development. How else would one build a climate forecast model if they couldn't test it with known data? Unfortunately we don't have time machines, yet.

It HAS fallen outside the forecasted trend. I was using A1B ensemble data and like I said current temps are "colder" than the coldest ensemble from the A1B grouping. A1B however is not the worst case scenario and as stated before we are outside of even the worst case scenario with current greenhouse gas emissions. If you want to use models that aren't using correct greenhouse gas emissions then yes current temps are staying inside some of those ensemble runs. Probably closer to the "B" type scenarios, which is the best case type scenarios.

Oh so did you finally get around downloading that data and charting it in Excel? I'd be interested in seeing these ensemble members you're talking about that match up with current weather but have the incorrect emissions. Not saying you are wrong, I'd just like to see them plotted because this is a point you are trying to hammer home and I've not seen any evidence beyond your hunch. I have seen that none of the temperature observations fall outside of the 95% ensemble range though.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Snowdog I refuse to believe you are in search of the truth wherever it may lead. You've not even really acknowledged any of the evidence I've posted in this thread. You've not yet even made a single post mentioning the Copenhagen Diagnosis. For all I know you've not even skimmed over the document. Saying all I've brought to the table is a couple of IPCC charts is bullcrap. You were the one hung up on the chart in the first place, accusing me of dodging the question remember? Then when I did the homework for you and explained clearly what was going on with it you shifted gears again and went all vague warblegarble on me.

I also do not think you are capable of making claims and backing them up. That is kind of important if we are going to have any sort of productive civil discussion.

I'm left scratching my head here. I made claims and backed them up then on page 2 you tried to refute my assertions with old graphs. You state that sea levels aren't falling (yes they are, check the NASA site, a simple Google search), you say temps aren't falling and again showed an old graph (yes temps have leveled off through the last decade and are now falling, I have provided the data), and global sea ice is back on the gain not to mention current northern hemispheric ice has peaked at the latest date in a long time.

I took your advice and googled "nasa sea level". It turned up a really neat visualizer of sea levels across the globe.

http://climate.nasa.gov/SeaLevelViewer/seaLevelViewer.cfm

If it wasn't for this thread I may not have come across that, thanks. And yep, it clearly shows sea level above normal globally. If you are going to claim sea levels are falling I'm going to need a specific link to a credible source.

Stovepipe wrote:I'm not changing anything. Putting climate models aside, let's look at temperature observations. The only way that you can possibly say that climate is cooling is if you only look at the last few years. Once again, this is weather not climate.

You said, "If observations show continued cooling and lower sea levels 10 years from now you might have a valid point". Well, the trendline over the last 10 years, actually a little longer, shows COOLING!! Also, if you want to trace temps back the the Little Ice Age, it will show warming from then till now. Big Whoop. Of course we are warming overall we are in an interglacial period. Overall we will continue to warm until the onset of the next ice age. This is all natural and has occured many times in the past. The bigger question on a much smaller time frame has to do with the validity of AGW and any possible climatic side effects.

Oh so did you finally get around downloading that data and charting it in Excel? I'd be interested in seeing these ensemble members you're talking about that match up with current weather but have the incorrect emissions.

No I can't open those .dat files but I found a graph that did have the A1B ensembles. They are on my other computer, I can link them later today.

Stovepipe wrote:I took your advice and googled "nasa sea level". It turned up a really neat visualizer of sea levels across the globe.

http://climate.nasa.gov/SeaLevelViewer/seaLevelViewer.cfm

If it wasn't for this thread I may not have come across that, thanks. And yep, it clearly shows sea level above normal globally. If you are going to claim sea levels are falling I'm going to need a specific link to a credible source.

It fell quite a bit from 2008 into 2011, then rebounded a bit and now it is falling once again. We shall see where it goes over the next few years.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:I'm not changing anything. Putting climate models aside, let's look at temperature observations. The only way that you can possibly say that climate is cooling is if you only look at the last few years. Once again, this is weather not climate.

You said, "If observations show continued cooling and lower sea levels 10 years from now you might have a valid point". Well, the trendline over the last 10 years, actually a little longer, shows COOLING!! Also, if you want to trace temps back the the Little Ice Age, it will show warming from then till now. Big Whoop. Of course we are warming overall we are in an interglacial period. Overall we will continue to warm until the onset of the next ice age. This is all natural and has occured many times in the past. The bigger question on a much smaller time frame has to do with the validity of AGW and any possible climatic side effects.

Oh so did you finally get around downloading that data and charting it in Excel? I'd be interested in seeing these ensemble members you're talking about that match up with current weather but have the incorrect emissions.

No I can't open those .dat files but I found a graph that did have the A1B ensembles. They are on my other computer, I can link them later today.

Way to twist my words. If 10 years from now we look back and see a 20 year cooling period (you've not convinced me at all we've been trending cooler for over a decade, but let's just say) then there may be some concerns that the assumptions we've made about warming aren't quite correct. Twenty years is still a relatively short time period climate wise but it's a hell of a lot more significant than 3 or 4 years which you appear to be trying to make a case on.

Looking forward to your graph. So it shows not only the temp projections of the ensembles but also each member's associated CO2 levels right? Because if it doesn't it's probably not going to be very useful in the context of your hunch.

Regarding sea level drops, there are occasional drops in sea level during the period of this graph. The recent drop seems to be the most significant. Again, it will interesting to see if this is just a short term trend or something more long term. Like most things with global warming, it is basically a wait and see situation.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:I took your advice and googled "nasa sea level". It turned up a really neat visualizer of sea levels across the globe.

http://climate.nasa.gov/SeaLevelViewer/seaLevelViewer.cfm

If it wasn't for this thread I may not have come across that, thanks. And yep, it clearly shows sea level above normal globally. If you are going to claim sea levels are falling I'm going to need a specific link to a credible source.

It fell quite a bit from 2008 into 2011, then rebounded a bit and now it is falling once again. We shall see where it goes over the next few years.

I found the article that I'm assuming you are referring to.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.

Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.

Once again, weather versus climate. This does not affect the trend! What is so hard to understand about that? If next year we have record warmth and record high sea levels I still can't use those anomalies to make any assumptions even if it does favor my "side" to do so.

A more recent graph for Mean Sea Level than the one I just posted.




If nothing else, you guys arguing about this has made me look up some of the latest data on the subject. Thanks for that.

Stovepipe wrote:Once again, weather versus climate. This does not affect the trend! What is so hard to understand about that? If next year we have record warmth and record high sea levels I still can't use those anomalies to make any assumptions even if it does favor my "side" to do so.

In relation to Global Sea Level you are right. Right now there isn't enough information to make a trend. Which is why I say we shall see in the future where we go from here. I also wouldn't point it out without all the other indices going in the direction of cooling as well.

Looking forward to your graph. So it shows not only the temp projections of the ensembles but also each member's associated CO2 levels right? Because if it doesn't it's probably not going to be very useful in the context of your hunch.

It shows the A1B ensembles for Global Temps. It does not show CO2. That is why I posted the bit from Wiki concerning current greenhouse emissions outpacing even the worst case scenario from IPCC (A1B is not worst case scenario). The IPCC site has info about their CO2 assumptions but I think you have to have a special decoder ring. I'm waiting for mine in the mail.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Once again, weather versus climate. This does not affect the trend! What is so hard to understand about that? If next year we have record warmth and record high sea levels I still can't use those anomalies to make any assumptions even if it does favor my "side" to do so.

In relation to Global Sea Level you are right. Right now there isn't enough information to make a trend. Which is why I say we shall see in the future where we go from here. I also wouldn't point it out without all the other indices going in the direction of cooling as well.

Looking forward to your graph. So it shows not only the temp projections of the ensembles but also each member's associated CO2 levels right? Because if it doesn't it's probably not going to be very useful in the context of your hunch.

It shows the A1B ensembles for Global Temps. It does not show CO2. That is why I posted the bit from Wiki concerning current greenhouse emissions outpacing even the worst case scenario from IPCC (A1B is not worst case scenario). The IPCC site has info about their CO2 assumptions but I think you have to have a special decoder ring. I'm waiting for mine in the mail.

See this is where you and I can't even come to terms on very basic things. Apparently you can establish that there is a significant cooling trend based on a very short time frame of data points. At the same time you state that there isn't enough information to show a rising sea level trend. Despite the charts that Math/Met and I showed of observed data. Earlier in the thread you stated that people can look at the same data and see two very different things. This isn't typically the case in science, especially for observed data, but it is surely the case in this thread.

Here is a visualization tool for the IPCC data:

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_visualisation.html

Here is some information on the GRIB format if you want to download it and play with it using some free software (Note that GRIB is also the format of raw weather model data as well so it's a handy piece of software to have):

http://www.ipcc-data.org/gcm/misc/GRIBGZIP.html

Finally, here is the download link for the data again:

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ar4/scenario-SRA1B-change.html

None of that really matters though if we can't even agree on trends of observed temperature and sea level data.

Stovepipe wrote:See this is where you and I can't even come to terms on very basic things. Apparently you can establish that there is a significant cooling trend based on a very short time frame of data points.

Here is your 15 year trend line. What does it show you? Very slight warming but closer to neutral over the last 15 years. About a .01C difference. Do we agree on this?


Here is the last 10 years trend line. What does it show to you? Looks like cooling to me. About a .1C difference. Can we agree on this too?

Fair enough. I see two very anomalous ENSO events. One in 1998 the "El Nino of the century" and one in 2008 the strongest La Nina of the 21st century so far. Taking those two extreme events into account along with climate of the past 100 years, nothing in those graphs would suggest the climate is not warming. Certainly not the "significant cooling trend" you are suggesting.

Again from CRU:

The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 13th warmest year of the whole record.

Stovepipe wrote:nothing in those graphs would suggest the climate is not warming. Certainly not the "significant cooling trend" you are suggesting.

When you want to have a rational discussion let me know.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:nothing in those graphs would suggest the climate is not warming. Certainly not the "significant cooling trend" you are suggesting.

When you want to have a rational discussion let me know.

Climate. Trend.

You can't show one on those charts.

Here's a bad ass chart for you:



It shows that the climate has not really warmed or cooled. We're both wrong.

Yes that's absurd, but in the context of climate that is essentially the same type of case you are trying to make. LOL

Also I love how you conveniently chopped off my sentence to take the words out of context. Real rational of you there buddy.